"Professor Rania's room"
Translation:غُرْفة اَلْأُسْتاذة رانْيا
10 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
And, though the final part of this iDaafa is a proper noun, hence definite, it (Rania) is in apposition to ustedha, not a continuation of the iDaafa. Could someone confirm that this is a valid way of looking at the question? I'm assuming that"apposition" is also a concept in Arabic.
Tom99226, medomadi, KatieC:
غرفةُ الأستاذةِ رانيا
"ghurfa(tu) 2al-2ustaadha(ti) raaniaa" - Complete Endings in Formal Standard.
2al-ustaadha(ti) الأستاذةِ is "" of "Raaniyaa" رانيا, which "Raaniyaa" رانيا itself is "badal" بدل of "2al-ustaadha(ti)" الاستاذةِ So, 2al-ustaadha(ti) الأستاذةِ should be definite "ma3rifa" معرفة. Whilst, the phrase itself is in 2iDaafa الأضافة construction. ghurfatu غرفةُ is muDaaf مضاف to 2al-ustaadha(ti), and Raaniaa is في محل جر as the بدل as I have mentioned.
In short, الاستاذة should be definite and we can say Rania is a continuation of the 2iDaafa according to Arabic Grammar.
Well, I have unleashed my النحو. I am so sorry for this. I have really found many difficulties when I should say the terms in English! Also, I couldn't understand all of your English terms well. I guess we have different logics! :))
But, Away54, as I understand it, if Rania was a continuation of the iDaafa, the literal translation would be, "the room of the professor of Rania". Now, that's wrong, isn't it? Because Rania is not the "possessor" of the professor, is she? That's what I meant by "in apposition". Rania IS the professor, she doesn't own the professor.
I think you're right, I see it the same way. In the example phrase we have "professor Rania" and her room: Rania and ustaadha are in apposition, hence they must agree in gender, case, definiteness etc, hence we get Rania-the-(female)Professor, which constitutes a single "block" (treated as a whole) and translates to الأستاذة رانيا . Similar concept exists in Arabic and is called بدل . Now all we have to do is to attach our "block" in Genitive to the first word of Idaafa and we have our default translation: (Professor Rania)'s room - غرفة الأستاذة رانيا
Now, if we were to continue with the Idaafa dependence chain step by step without our Rania in apposition, we would get an entirely different result:
(1) the first Idaafa : أستاذة رانيا - Rania's professor
(2) the second Idaafa: - غرفة أستاذة رانيا - (Rania's professor)'s room
...which is the incorrect translation Tom9926 suggested in the first comment. Here, it is the professor who is the owner of the room and she also happens to be Rania's professor.
I hope my logic and assumptions are not faulty. Could some kind native cast an eye over this discussion?